播客：Faust 谈 Runes Merlin 和 RGB++ 比特币生态更自由

原文作者:Faust, 极客 Web3 & BTCEden 联创

Original source: Wu said

Microcosm:

https://www.xiaoyuzhoufm.com/episode/6624dca8c3e09d8f3772f096?s=eyJ1IjoiNjJmOGI3MmZlZGNlNjcxMDRhYTBhYTQxIiwiZCI6MX0%3D

Youtube:

https://youtu.be/dSWcUhD6y8o

On April 20th, Bitcoin completed its fourth halving and Runes went live. Once launched, Runes' minting and new listings brought high congestion to the Bitcoin network, with network transaction fees exceeding 2,000 sat/vb at one point. According to glassnode data, on April 20, Bitcoin miners' revenue reached $107 million in US dollars, of which 75.444% came from network transaction fees, both of which hit a record high. On the eve of the halving, Bitcoin Layer2 Merlin Chain, which has the highest TVL, also released tokens and listed OKX trading.

This is an interview with Faust, co-founder of Bitcoin L2 rating website BTCEden, and is about 45 minutes long. Contains the sharing of technical architectures and perspectives on Bitcoin Tier 1 asset issuance protocols such as Runes, Ordinals, and Atomicals, as well as Bitcoin Layer 2 such as Merlin. This interview was conducted on April 20 at 8 p.m. EDT.

Tell us a little about yourself

Faust: Hi everyone, I'm Faust, a geek Web3 and BTCEden co-creator. Geek Web3 is now working on a technical research and media platform that benchmarks Messari, and we also have our own technical community, while BTCEden, which is L2Beat benchmarked against the Ethereum community, is based on becoming a technical assessment and risk visualization website for the Bitcoin ecosystem.

My personal experience is a bit interesting, but it's also a bit tortuous, and I'm relatively young compared to most Web3 entrepreneurs – I've only been on the job for less than four years. I didn't have a background in computer science (CS), but I had a strong interest in computer technology and wanted to be a first-class programmer, but during the pandemic in 2020, I started writing in my spare time, and I soon realized that writing was the greatest joy of my life, and my whole career plan changed.

I've worked at OKX, BlockBeats, and Bobcat Miners. During this time, I realized that Chinese Web3 lacks a platform with a huge impact that focuses on technology science and technology education. Although there are many professional media outlets and many Web3 education communities in this circle, there are only a handful of platforms that are truly influential and focus on technology and underlying principles.

After leaving his last company in May 2023, he made up his mind to officially start his entrepreneurial journey, which was the earliest origin of Geek Web3.

At that time, I paid more attention to Ethereum Layer 2, and when I was learning about Ethereum Layer 2, I was amazed by the website L2Beat. In this one-stop Ethereum Layer 2 information base, whether it is the technical solutions of major rollups or the visualization of security risks, there is a very detailed, systematic and clear display.

L2Beat showed me that Web3 rating agencies can work. And in 2023~2024, it coincides with the time when the Bitcoin ecosystem is in full swing and various projects are mixed, and the Bitcoin ecosystem is in great need of something similar to L2Beat.

In March of this year, I teamed up with a technology leader in the industry to officially launch the L2Beat of the Bitcoin ecosystem - BTCEden, which is in line with the Ethereum community L2Beat, which focuses on the technical rating, security risk assessment and risk visualization of Bitcoin Layer 2, as well as key data displays such as TVL, TPS, and fee, as well as various functional completeness evaluation indicators.

Bitcoin halved and Runes was born, what do you think of Runes, a new asset issuance protocol, and how is it different from the original Ordinals and Atomicals?

Faust: Technically, BRC-20 assets like Inscriptions and Ordinals are different from Runes and Atomicals. In terms of the way assets exist and are transferred on the Bitcoin chain, Runes and RGB are closer in terms of the form of asset parasitism and transfer, Atomicals are more like dyed coins, and Ordinals are more unique.

Ordinals, along with Runes and RGB, all send off-chain generated transaction data to the Bitcoin chain, with taproot for the former and op_return opcodes for the latter. Anyone running an indexer client can retrieve and parse this data and know what Ordinals or Runes protocol-related transactions are occurring now or recently.

Atomicals is different from Ordinals and Runes as well as RGB on top of that. Atomicals assets are tied to UTXOs on the Bitcoin Chain in a dyed coin-like way, which sets them apart from several other asset protocols.

For example, if a user wants to trigger an Atomicals transaction, they only need to transfer the Bitcoin UTXO dyed with Atomicals assets directly to someone else, and the client can identify who the Atomicals assets are transferred to and how much by monitoring the transfer of the Bitcoin UTXO, but like Ordinals and Runes, it works differently. Ordinals and Runes may be more reliant on indexers than Atomcials.

We can think that Runes, Ordinals, and Atomcials have their own characteristics, and Runes itself is an upgraded version of the inscription protocol given by the founder of Ordinals, which is superior to Ordinals, and Atomicals has more diverse gameplay and more landing scenarios.

Will Runes replace the now more prevalent Ordinals and BRC-20 as the endgame for Bitcoin asset issuance protocols, or what do you think the future of the Bitcoin layer one asset protocol landscape will look like?

Faust: That's the opinion of some people that Ordinals might cool down after Runes and Atomicals become popular, because runes are actually evolved inscriptions.

Ordinals, since the inscription became popular last year, it has been half a year or more than half a year, and during this time, you can see that after BRC-20, Ordinals has not made much noise, and now most people are basically focusing on Runes runes or RGB++ and other things.

In the next words, the heat and limelight of the Ordinals may be overshadowed by Runes. Whether it's from a technical standpoint, or from the overall market heat right now, or in terms of narrative, I don't think Ordinals has much of an advantage over Runes. Runes, Atomicals, and RGB++ are likely to be the inevitable bandwagon of the Bitcoin derivatives protocol in the future.

Is it possible for Runes to take on some other narrative ability, such as games and the like?

Faust: I think it's entirely possible. Related games or similar things may not have much to do with technology, but more to do with ecological construction. For things like runes, you only need to design your own asset circulation and asset issuance protocol, and deal with the business logic about assets.

With the current popularity of runes, it is entirely possible that there will be chain games or the like, or some phenomenal applications. Vitalik explained the "low-hanging apple" theory, and if something becomes a prominent thing and has enough attention, then the surrounding things around such a thing will inevitably be discovered. Developing a game related to the rune protocol, there will definitely be people who will do it, but I don't know which one will run out.

Bitcoin Magazine's standard definition of Bitcoin L2 is the use of BTC as the native asset, the use of Bitcoin as the settlement mechanism to execute trades, and the need to demonstrate dependence on Bitcoin's functionality. What do you think of Bitcoin Magazine's definition of these Bitcoin L2 standards? Does BTCEden have some criteria for its own definition?

Faust: Bitcoin Magazine's set of standards is interesting, but it's ideologically overtones. As you can see, the use of BTC as the native asset, the use of Bitcoin as a settlement mechanism to execute transactions, and the demonstration of dependence on the functionality of Bitcoin are actually characteristics that are exhibited between Ethereum and Ethereum Layer 2.

I think Bitcoin Magazine seems to have summarized a lot of coupling relationships between Ethereum Layer2 and Ethereum, and then said that this relationship should also be met by Bitcoin Layer2, and considered it a necessary condition for Layer 2.

Personally, I think it's like nonsense to say that there is a functional dependency between Layer 2 and Bitcoin. Now everything that can be related to Bitcoin Layer 2 has a functional dependency on Bitcoin.

It is then important to use Bitcoin as a settlement mechanism for transactions. First of all, this Layer 2 should be able to inherit the security of Bitcoin, just as Ethereum Layer 2 inherits the security from Ethereum.

Using Bitcoin as a settlement platform, the security of this transaction is definitely guaranteed by Bitcoin in the end. The logic of this part is actually similar to Ethereum Layer 2. The Ethereum Foundation has a clear definition of which technical solutions and which product types belong to Layer 2. For example, they believe that from a security perspective, state channels, plasma, and rollups are all Layer 2, and these three technical solutions can theoretically ensure that user assets are always safe.

Of course, this is from a theoretical level, but if it is practiced, the current Ethereum Layer 2 basically has various risks. I don't think it's wrong for Bitcoin Magazine to use this as a necessary condition for Bitcoin Layer 2, at least I personally don't object to it, and of course I don't support it, but I certainly don't disagree.

What BTCEden is doing now is to evaluate each Bitcoin Layer 2 from a security risk perspective. Personally, I take safety very seriously. At present, many Bitcoin Layer 2 project parties are not very responsible, they are very perfunctory about asset security, and they don't even have a reliable technical document and a decent white paper.

Bitcoin Magazine may be trying to change the chaos of the Bitcoin ecosystem through its so-called "Three Chapters of the Law". Personally, I have no objection to the three criteria they have proposed. But I don't think a simple three definitions of what Bitcoin Layer 2 is and what isn't Bitcoin Magazine are not enough.

It would be much more complicated to come up with a true Bitcoin Layer 2 standard framework than Bitcoin Magazine said.

Of course, this kind of thing may be beyond our capabilities, so BTCEden's current approach is that we don't think about what is Bitcoin Layer 2 and what is not, but whenever a project claims to be a Bitcoin Layer 2, and then as long as it has the slightest functional dependency with Bitcoin, we will publish the information and security risk assessment of this project on our BTCEden website.

We are now very open-minded. But back to the original question, what and how to define Bitcoin Layer 2 is a matter that may be up to the market and the community to decide. I think it will take at least another year for most people to come to a consensus. It's too early to discuss this issue.

What is the technical architecture of Merlin Chain?

Faust: The technical architecture of Merlin Chain is quite clear. I think Merlin is closer to some of the current Ethereum Layer 2s, and they explicitly emphasize on their website that they have "decentralized oracles". In fact, its decentralized oracle, in a way, is a new name for the so-called data availability committee, that is, Merlin, which they are now using is actually a "decentralized data availability committee".

Let me start by talking about what the Data Availability Committee is. Many Layer 2s don't send their full data to Ethereum or the Bitcoin chain, which is too expensive. So they publish the data to the Layer1 off-chain, which is to build a so-called DA layer off-chain.

The Data Availability Committee is an implementation of the off-chain DA layer, and it has an abbreviation called Data Availability Committee (DAC). The DAC committee acts as a guarantor, and they check that the Layer 2 sequencer has published the full DA data off-chain. If they detect that the sequencer is actually publishing data off-chain, the DAC members will generate a multisig and upload it to Ethereum or the Bitcoin chain. It's like telling the outside world that we've checked the sequencer and that it does publish data to Ethereum or Bitcoin off-chain.

However, many Ethereum Layer 2 data availability committees, in the form of KYC, must be officially appointed before they can join the data availability committee. In this way, there is no essential difference from the official setting up several nodes by itself, and it is a complete form of alliance chain.

Many Ethereum Layer2 DAC nodes only have so few, and every time they do multi-signing, they are 3/5 or 2/5 or 2/4, which is very unreliable.

There is an even worse thing, many Layer 2 DACs have monopoly power. What does monopoly mean by the sequencer? The sequencer only sends DA data to this DAC node, and no one else can see the data at all. If anyone wants to get the latest published data from the sequencer, they must first apply to the Data Availability Council node.

If the committee node won't let you get the DA data, then you won't get anything. This is a naked degeneration of the consortium chain. Dankrad of the Ethereum Foundation is so disgusted by this that he tweeted a lot of DACs on Twitter last August.

Of course, Merlin, although it also uses DACs, but they are decentralized DACs, which means that its access to the data availability committee is open. As long as you stake your assets, you can become a member of the DAC. By staking a certain amount of assets, in the form of PoS, you can join the DAC, so that the DAC can achieve a high degree of decentralization.

This is the biggest difference between Merlin's Data Availability Committee and some Ethereum Layer2 Data Availability Committees. In this form, it is equivalent to me making a chain under the Bitcoin chain, and then this chain is specially used to receive DA data published by the sequencer. Anyone who wants to get data can ask Merlin for access to the data from the chain they have made, or run a node to join the Merlin Chain Data Availability Committee.

This approach is more decentralized, like B^Square is actually using this idea to some extent, but they don't use DAC, it's a bit more like Celestia.

Taken together, you can understand that the general structure of Merlin is similar to that of some Ethereum Layer 2s. I don't need to introduce too much about this, everyone is already familiar with it.

The architectures of companies like Merlin and B^Square are more similar to some Ethereum Layer 2s, so why don't they support each other with LST/LRT on Ethereum?

Faust: I think it involves them belonging to a different system, they belong to a different infrastructure, or to put it bluntly, they are in a different ecosystem, which is particularly dependent on the full-chain interaction of various assets, and the underlying infrastructure of full-chain interoperability between Bitcoin and Ethereum is very imperfect. Let's talk about LST, if you want to support multiple chains, such as Merlin, B^Square, Ethereum Layer2 or Avalanche, there is a necessary condition first, and the scenario of full chain interoperability needs to be relatively mature. But as you can see, the Bitcoin ecosystem is just getting started, and its infrastructure is still very poor, which may be a very important reason.

What problem does RGB++ solve, and what is the relationship with the original RGB?

Faust: RGB++ is actually an improved version of CKB's official implementation of the original RGB protocol, which is compatible with CKB. Let me start by explaining what RGB is. Although RGB is also Web3 infrastructure, it is actually a network without consensus, a pure P2P thing.

You can understand it as the era of Web1, that is, when the Internet just appeared, different hosts and different computers were P2P communication scenarios. RGB does not have a consensus protocol, everyone works in silos, and it is a loose P2P network.

What if you want to guarantee that an asset swap between any two people is reliable? This is actually a regression to the most primitive human asset swap scenario. As the receiver of the asset, you have to find a way to verify the condition of the asset issuer and the historical provenance of the asset that he presents to you.

RGB's P2P network has no consensus, and you can't see strangers' data. For example, in a vegetable market, there are many people bartering and exchanging money, if someone takes out a wad of banknotes and tells you that the money is real money and not counterfeit money, how should you believe him?

One way is to ask him to explain where the money came from, from which bank the money was first issued, who printed it, and how many people the money has changed hands. If you can find out the ins and outs, you can tell if his money is counterfeit or not, whether it was printed by himself.

RGB looks like this in a way. When you don't know other people's asset data, asset status and source, you need to check where his assets were first issued, where they circulated, and how many people have changed hands; when they are finally presented to you, whether his assets are valid and whether the balance of assets is really as he said. He says he has 5,000 BTC, but it's possible that he made up that 5,000 BTC out of thin air, and you need to make sure that doesn't happen, and that's RGB.

RGB++ is actually CKB, and they are an improvement on the original RGB protocol. I also mentioned earlier that RGB is a P2P thing that has no consensus. If someone wants to transfer money to you, you have to verify it yourself, which is a very troublesome thing, and if the money has changed hands by millions of people, you have to check it one by one at this time, and you don't know when you have to find it, it is very slow.

There are a lot of other problems with the RGB protocol, and it doesn't have a way to support DeFi and some complex smart contracts well. It all boils down to one reason, and there is no consensus on it. Consensus guarantees that the same data will be received by many members of the network. If a contract is deployed on Ethereum, the code of this contract will be propagated to all Ethereum nodes as soon as possible. However, if the consensus is removed, as a smart contract issuer in RGB, there is no way to require other RGB users to back up all the data of a smart contract locally.

And then the RGB official did a very bloody thing. He asked the issuer of the smart contract to find a random platform, such as Twitter, Github or any forum, to tell everyone what the smart contract intends to design and what functions it should contain, and let everyone download the backup by themselves. If someone wants to use a function of a smart contract, they must first find someone who also recognizes the smart contract and downloads it locally before they can interact with it later.

When you hear it, you will find this nonsense. Obviously, the above method is not conducive to the promotion of smart contracts, and if it is a Defi smart contract similar to a public good, how can you maintain the operation without relying on the consensus protocol? Like Ethereum, it aggregates all the data in all accounts, and then copies and sends backups to all Ethereum nodes. Through this method of consensus, many complex smart contracts can be backed up on the whole network. Every time something changes to this smart contract, everyone knows.

However, in RGB, a masterless contract, similar to a public good, is easy to degenerate into a private good, because it has no consensus protocol, and in the end, there may only be a few nodes to store the core data of the Defi ownerless contract. If only a few people have control over public goods, or only a few people can synchronize the changes that occur in public goods in a timely manner, this kind of thing is not called a public good, but more like a private good.

If the RGB official wants to implement DeFi in the future, it will be a bit troublesome, and it is easy to get into the appearance of a decentralized infrastructure. This means that RGB is not good for the DeFi scene. It hasn't actually developed many real users so far, and on the surface it looks like an interesting narrative, but from a product perspective, it will face a lot of problems.

RGB++ publishes RGB asset data and asset change records to the CKB chain. In this way, every time the RGB assets are transferred and the data is changed, the CKB network will automatically back up, and automatically synchronize all nodes, just like most public chains.

Both RGB++ and RGB share a common characteristic. RGB is equivalent to issuing an asset similar to runes, and then the newly issued asset wants to obtain the security of Bitcoin, so it binds this asset to a UTXO on the Bitcoin chain to establish a one-to-one mapping relationship. If the UTXO on the Bitcoin chain is not consumed, then the RGB bound to the UTXO will not be consumed out of thin air, in this way to prevent double-spending (double-spending) and partially inherit the security of Bitcoin.

RGB++ also has such a property. Bind an RGB asset container on top of the CKB to a UTXO on the Bitcoin chain. If the Bitcoin UTXO does not have an accident, the assets in the bound CKB asset container will not have an accident, and in this way the security of Bitcoin will be partially inherited.

The relationship between the two is roughly like this. RGB++ is a big improvement over RGB in terms of ease of use and contract support. The ecological construction of RGB may be very slow in the future.

Which do you think will be more helpful (impactful) to their respective ecosystems?

Faust: That's an interesting question. Let me start with the Ethereum Foundation. I think the current Ethereum ecosystem is somewhat shaped by the Ethereum Foundation, a bit like the relationship between Constantine and Catholicism. In fact, it has been said before that the Ethereum Foundation is more like a church, like Catholicism. The entire Ethereum ecosystem has been shaped to some extent by the Ethereum Foundation, and Vitalik in particular.

What emerges in this ecosystem is largely in line with the ideas of Vitalik and the Ethereum Foundation, and of course, things like Restaking and EigenLayer actually exceed the expectations of the Ethereum Foundation.

Coming back to the above question, I don't think the Ethereum Foundation can use the word "help" to help its own ecology, but how much "impact" it has. The current state of the Ethereum ecosystem is largely shaped by the Ethereum Foundation. It may be that in the process, a lot of things are excluded, and at the same time, a lot of things are also promoted. It's hard to say whether this kind of thing will help an ecology more or less.

However, the Ethereum ecosystem we see today is so large that it must be closely related to the Ethereum Foundation. I think they must have a very big impact on their own ecology.

Like Bitcoin Core's attitude towards the Bitcoin ecosystem, it's more like laissez-faire, and it has much less influence on the Bitcoin ecosystem. It doesn't interfere in some of its own ecosystem as often as the Ethereum Foundation, but rather provides a technical platform to improve the code of the Bitcoin client terminal, and is only responsible for helping the Bitcoin network work better. But what's going on on the web, the Bitcoin Core gang is nowhere near as influential as the Ethereum Foundation. One of the benefits of this is that it's freer.

One thing you have to understand is that in many cases, you have to be more free in order for more innovation to emerge. Although there is a lot of innovation in the Ethereum ecosystem, everyone will probably admit that the Bitcoin ecosystem is far more liberal than the Ethereum ecosystem.

A free and open world will certainly be more helpful for ecological construction. In a way, I think the Bitcoin Core model and the way the Bitcoin ecosystem works right now is probably what a lot of people prefer. This is why many people believe that the opportunity, vitality and prosperity of the Bitcoin ecosystem may be better than the current Ethereum ecosystem. Personally, I also prefer the governance of Bitcoin Core, or the Bitcoin ecosystem, to the Ethereum Foundation.

Share some Bitcoin ecosystem projects or Bitcoin Layer 2 that you are optimistic about and willing to invest in, and why

Faust: I'll tell you a few of my favorites. I'm more optimistic about Bitcoin Layer 2, BitLayer, Merlin, and B^Square, which are actually very good, and Citrea is also very good.

Personally, I think that in the next words, there may only be single-digit projects in the Bitcoin ecosystem that can really run out. This is a bit similar to Ethereum Layer 2, which can really run out of a very large volume and a lot of real scenes, maybe only 5-6 or less than 10. The rest may not be able to run out at all.

Why am I so bullish on the Bitcoin Layer 2 above? Merlin already has its own ecosystem in the first place. Regardless of whether it depends on the wealth effect or the so-called narrative, at least it has an ecology and real users. It's not like a lot of projects, it's very technically complex, it's awesome, it's superior, but it's not going to the last user.

Merlin has already told everyone that this thing has come out of my way. And then then, a lot of technical holes, they can slowly fill step by step. That's why I'm bullish on them: they're the first Bitcoin Layer 2 to come out in the true sense of the word.

B^Square is also doing well in terms of numbers right now, which is one reason why I'm bullish on him. BitLayer and Citrea are some of the most technically hardcore teams from a variety of perspectives, including technical implementation, team members' resumes, financiers' backgrounds, and their technical solutions, as well as the completeness of the white paper. At the very least, they can be ranked in the top 10 or 5 in terms of the perfection of their technical roadmap, the seriousness of Bitcoin Layer 2, and the importance they place on security.

This is the reason why I am more optimistic about them, their attitude is more serious, and they really want to do something, rather than just trying to rub a gimmick and speculate like many Bitcoin Layer 2 now.

In my opinion, if a project party can't even make a decent technical document, not even a white paper, a yellow book can't be published for a long time, and there is no in-depth interpretation of its own security plan and technical plan, such a project will have a very perfunctory attitude.

We have seen a lot of such projects in the Bitcoin ecosystem, and some of them are star projects that have raised a lot of money, and there is not even a technical document or a white paper on the official website.

Personally, I think that the attitude of the founders is very, very important. If a founder doesn't have a pattern, then the entrepreneurial project itself won't have much pattern.

painted eggshell

Faust: Nowadays, personal investment is to invest in some large currencies on the second level, or some blue-chip assets on Binance and OKX on the second level. My holdings are: CKB, Merlin, OP, Worldcoin, STX, SUI, TIA, Arbitrum, Starknet, and BTC.

I've been holding on to these for a long time. I don't interact with each other on the chain now, and my main focus is on my daily work. I have a characteristic of doing things, in terms of investment, if I don't have any preparations, I just don't do it, and I don't rush to something I don't know at all.

Like Bitcoin chain assets, I didn't make any preparations in this regard, and I didn't have so much energy to collect intelligence all day, I haven't touched any runes until now, and I only spent 2000U to play inscriptions in December last year, which is basically a drizzle.

Advice for newcomers

Faust: It is recommended that more young people or those who have just joined the industry should take the time to learn all kinds of Web3 knowledge, especially deepen their understanding of technology, finance, and various products, including DeFi, asset protocols or other financial products, as well as the underlying technology of blockchain.

After many people enter this circle, they spend all day long in the dirt dog to engage in speculation, and they don't study hard, and they don't grow up well, they just think about getting rich by walking shit, this mentality is very sick and distorted, don't do it. Nine times out of ten, you don't make any money, and then you don't grow at all. The safest, most reliable and most meaningful thing for yourself is to learn more knowledge, improve your skill tree, and make yourself stronger.

In fact, Web3 is a very suitable circle for entrepreneurs. No other circle has as many startup projects as Web3, and many of them can be revitalized. The difficulty and threshold for starting a business in Web3 are actually much lower than those in traditional industries, and most people can live a decent life.

I would advise those who are new to this circle to spend more time studying, then find a decent job, hone themselves for a while, and find a good opportunity to start a business. People must have a long-term vision and always motivate their goals, otherwise life will be very boring, and that kind of boring burnout cannot be solved with money.